Infact im confused about the planes. Why on Earth is it bad to hold your LZ and your aircraft? Wouldnt landing your troops and taking the required target be good for a invasion? It makes no sense why its -1 troop for holding the plane and its parachute closest to it.

Ok, fine. I can bombard the beach, but why should I be able to reinforce from artillery to beach (I assume that I can attack then move forward as well... never tried it though since I find that bombardment has limited purpose on this map).

Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.

The bombardments on this map are actually one-way attacks, and not bombardments in the official CC sense of the word... primarily because this map was put out before bombardments were added to the XML arsenal....

I supposed it wouldn;t be too much to adjust the XML to make them bombardments, but it's more-or-less up to mibi...

PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that

This is one of my favorite maps, (even if mibi is the author) lol.There are a few things about it that are indeed a bit off, like the fact that it is upside down with north to the south. I do not object to not placing north to the top, if there is a reason. However, the reason here escapes me. Also the thing about the -1 for holding the plane and parachute is quite odd. Same with the artillery bombardments. As mr B stated, they are NOT really bombardments at all. They are simply one way attacks.

What I really love about this map is, it is complicated, in that a lot of the names are very similar. It took me a few games before I memorized them, and I still make a mistake now and then with deployments and attacks, but not often. which usually gives me the upper hand against someone that is not as familiar with the map.

The graphics are NOT very good, but like I said, I love it for the complexity, and for the points that I make on it.

MrBenn wrote:The bombardments on this map are actually one-way attacks, and not bombardments in the official CC sense of the word... primarily because this map was put out before bombardments were added to the XML arsenal....

I supposed it wouldn;t be too much to adjust the XML to make them bombardments, but it's more-or-less up to mibi...

Ah... I see. Guess I just have gotten used to thinking of bombardments. Sorry about that. Guess that one-way attacks was the shit back then when innovating the maps!

Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.

I haven't really committed myself to redesigning this map unless I am forced to, if mibi wants to he might have a fight on his hands. Most of the arguments I see I am willing to attempt to refute.

This map is really unbalanced in 1v1, first turn wins, starting with the -1 bonus is death sentence, ect ect.

To begin with this map was created before 1v1 games. We never had to consider balancing for them and I would like to believe a grandfather clause should be in effect here. That said I wouldn't hate it if there were 2 less random German territories although I can't see how we would do it without making the map look really really weird.

WTF, attacks instead of bombardments? That makes no thematic sense.

Also while we are on the subject of a grandfather clause, there were no bombardments when this map was made. It was not in the xml. Along with starting neutrals, they were not in the xml. Unfortunately we love the way this plays too much to be willing to change it to bombardments unless the foundry forces us to. In addition I am concerned that people stuck with artillery would never be able to win because they lack a way to attack ship bonuses if it were bombardments. With the current system someone with an artillery bonus can make a charge against a ship to break a bonus.

lol noob, you made north and south wrong.

In response to the top vs bottom arguments that constantly come up, we never put a compass on the map. North is on the bottom and south is on the top. We wanted to create the feeling you were storming the beach and when the beach was on the bottom the feeling was that you were defending the beach. Thus it put the flavor of the map off. I would be willing to have an upside down compass on the map to show that north is in fact the bottom and south is the top but I don't think it would fit anywhere. mibi didn't waste any of the space available to him under the size constraints so a compass would have to be really small and would probably just look goofy.

Really though, that -1 bonus is punishing, why is it there?

The -1 bonus came about because the ships had too much of an advantage otherwise. Without that -1 bonus the people with the ships had a very high chance of always winning and removing the flyovers made for very long games so that was the compromise.

So another words you are a stubborn old goat and won't fix anything.

Actually, there are 2 problems I see that have merit in my eyes, first, that the territory count is very bad for 1v1 games and second that the -1 bonus is equally bad if you get it in a 1v1 game. To fix these two problems simultaneously all I would need to do is make both planes start with 3 neutral. This would in effect decrease the territory count by 2 and it would stop people from starting with the -1 bonus in 1v1 without requiring us to do any drastic redesigns to the map.

If the cartos feel this is a positive change I'll adjust the xml and send it to whomever receives xml updates now a days.

porkenbeans wrote:What I really love about this map is, it is complicated, in that a lot of the names are very similar. It took me a few games before I memorized them, and I still make a mistake now and then with deployments and attacks, but not often. which usually gives me the upper hand against someone that is not as familiar with the map.

It doesn't give you an advantage if they are using clickies, of course

porkenbeans wrote:What I really love about this map is, it is complicated, in that a lot of the names are very similar. It took me a few games before I memorized them, and I still make a mistake now and then with deployments and attacks, but not often. which usually gives me the upper hand against someone that is not as familiar with the map.

It doesn't give you an advantage if they are using clickies, of course

Coleman wrote:Actually, there are 2 problems I see that have merit in my eyes, first, that the territory count is very bad for 1v1 games and second that the -1 bonus is equally bad if you get it in a 1v1 game. To fix these two problems simultaneously all I would need to do is make both planes start with 3 neutral. This would in effect decrease the territory count by 2 and it would stop people from starting with the -1 bonus in 1v1 without requiring us to do any drastic redesigns to the map.

If the cartos feel this is a positive change I'll adjust the xml and send it to whomever receives xml updates now a days.

Rather than making the planes start neutral, what about the landing points? If, indeed, the purpose of the -1 is to discourage rampant expansion from the ships, then it works just as well... plus anyone looking to control the outermost ships would also have to eliminate any enemies from the planes to secure their borders, making it a bit harder to control them in the first place. With the attendant removal of the strong first-mover advantage in 1v1 (as well as 2v2), that might be a nice fix.

Coleman wrote:Actually, there are 2 problems I see that have merit in my eyes, first, that the territory count is very bad for 1v1 games and second that the -1 bonus is equally bad if you get it in a 1v1 game. To fix these two problems simultaneously all I would need to do is make both planes start with 3 neutral. This would in effect decrease the territory count by 2 and it would stop people from starting with the -1 bonus in 1v1 without requiring us to do any drastic redesigns to the map.

If the cartos feel this is a positive change I'll adjust the xml and send it to whomever receives xml updates now a days.

Rather than making the planes start neutral, what about the landing points? If, indeed, the purpose of the -1 is to discourage rampant expansion from the ships, then it works just as well... plus anyone looking to control the outermost ships would also have to eliminate any enemies from the planes to secure their borders, making it a bit harder to control them in the first place. With the attendant removal of the strong first-mover advantage in 1v1 (as well as 2v2), that might be a nice fix.

Thank you! That makes more sense to me and is far less arbitrary then my solution. Just waiting on an okay from mibi then.

I will gladly take you up on that offer mibi, but before I go to all the trouble of revamping this map from the ground up, take a quick look at what I can do with only 40 min. in photoshop.There are a few more things that I have in mind. like upgrading those awful looking ships etc.

The 40 min. revamp is already an improvement on this map, with more work, it will make your finished image, look like a rough draft.

I will take you up on the offer, but, I will demand a voting process that you and your peanut gallery can NOT fix. I will send out ballots to a few dozen CC members that are not "Forum regulars", and they will be players that have never played this map before.

OR-

You can accept my alternate offer.

And that is, you agree to stop this childish game that you and your clan have been playing in the Foundry. Your constant attempt at humor, by tearing down map makers efforts, must come to an end. It is NOT funny, and only drives people away from the Foundry. It is not constructive in any way. I would much rather see you use your experience to help others, instead of making jokes and hurting people.

Trust me when I tell you that, you will be lucky to get 2% of the vote if it comes down to it.

As a piece of art your beach-and-ocean area is nicer to look at; as a map, the whole thing wouldn't pass. In any case, the challenge was to make your own map, and that means your own graphical concepts, which are the things people think are shit, anyway.

As a piece of art your beach-and-ocean area is nicer to look at; as a map, the whole thing wouldn't pass. In any case, the challenge was to make your own map, and that means your own graphical concepts, which are the things people think are shit, anyway.

And mib isn't in a clan.

First, If you think this was just playing with contrast and colors, you would be wrong.Second, the challenge was to revamp, not to make my own map. If I were going to do that, I would make a much more true representation of the Battle at Omaha Beach.

As a piece of art your beach-and-ocean area is nicer to look at; as a map, the whole thing wouldn't pass. In any case, the challenge was to make your own map, and that means your own graphical concepts, which are the things people think are shit, anyway.

And mib isn't in a clan.

First, If you think this was just playing with contrast and colors, you would be wrong.Second, the challenge was to revamp, not to make my own map. If I were going to do that, I would make a much more true representation of the Battle at Omaha Beach.